Meet Harry Leslie Smith, 94 yr-old podcaster & Sunday Open Thread

Harry Leslie Smith is deeply disturbed at how democracy has become endangered. He’s convinced young people can be the planet’s salvation – and he’s reaching out to them one podcast at a time

“We are at a dangerous crossroads for society and democracy,” Mr. Smith said…“I believe the world is in just as dangerous a state as it was when I was a teen, watching democracy dissolve all across Europe.”

He was having a bit of trouble catching his breath, and paused before his next sentence: “That’s why I’m starting a podcast.”

Harry lives part of each year in Britain and the other part in Canada.

His podcast is called Harry’s Last Stand.

Mr. Smith’s podcast was increasingly filled with the distress and frustration of a 94-year-old man who felt he was shouting into the wind. But then, by the time he recorded the sixth episode, there was an astonishing change in the political mood. The Tories’ shoo-in collapsed as the result of a calamitous campaign. Mr. Smith recorded one final exhortation to the young people of Britain: “You can stop this, like my generation did when we were young and our future lay before us like the outline of a New World seen from a sailor’s spyglass.”

You may remember Harry, actually. He was pictured in Calais back in January, 2016 when he wanted to bring attention to all of the refugees there.

(If the link above does not get you behind the wall, try this avenue.)

“I’m elated,” Mr. Smith says. “It was young people who put us in this position where we finally have the chance to change Britain. I’ve spoken to young people in schools and universities across England for the past many years, but I never got that sense of awakening that I did this time.”

Thank you Harry.

And thanks to all who read this and even more thanks to those who add anything below!

No one should have assumed the political comedians wouldn’t become status quo mouthpieces after the major media was put in the ownership of a few large corporations. But the result has been too painful not to comment on. In what’s passed off as ironic and folksy observations about the world’s problems, modern late night “left-leaning” comedy presents politics through a lens that’s wholly distorted by the beltway views of the network bosses. The optics are a disconcerting vision of rich people in suits standing on a stage in front of millions, selling power-serving propaganda with the frame of satire and witticism.

I’ve cited enough examples in past articles about how the late night comedians serve the power structure; their smacking down of third parties, their aggressive pushing of the Russia narrative; their active efforts to bury the election fraud in last year’s primaries. I’d like to focus here on the template they provide for how we’re collectively dragging ourselves to collapse.

Which is to say by seeking out comfort at whatever cost. The trick the Celebrity Clowns use, like that of the ruling class’ other surrogates, is to make their followers feel righteous in sticking with the established system. To the uproarious applause of the studio audience and the praise of headlines, these performers “destroy” the designated villains while building up a sense of satisfaction among anyone who goes with the designated heroes. We’re made to feel good about ourselves as we nod to the denunciations of Russia, of Trump, of the unreasonable leftists who point out Trump wouldn’t even be a subject if we’d addressed our problems instead of trying to start a war with Russia.

I disagree with his opinion of Bernie being too enmeshed at the end, but I think this is important. LOTS of folks watch these comedians and think they are being progressive. Better these guys than some, sure, but really, where are they when the chips are down for democratic socialists? I haven’t seen them in ages, so maybe Rainer and I are both wrong.

I don’t watch any of them anymore, I stopped thinking any of them are funny quite awhile ago. Except for Jonathan Pie.

PB, last night I watched some of a silly movie called Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. (Hubby likes that stuff from time to time-I was folding clothes and baking bread most of the time, lol)

The thing that bothered me the most about the movie were the cameos. Charlie Rose, Soledad O’Brien, Anderson Cooper and Patrick Leahy all ‘played’ themselves. It really rubbed me the wrong way. Hubby was rolling his eyes at me, but I think it made a mockery of their so-called real roles as what are supposed to be important positions at the pinnacle of MSM and DC power turning them into just another form of entertainment. What they do is just ‘playing’ a role.

That’s right — sold themselves out. As much as the dignity of the profession is repeatedly and outrageously violated every day (if not every hour), journalism, at least in theory, remains an institution with a moral commitment to the public: To report the news, fairly and honestly; to expose injustice; to offer readers insights into a world they may not know. Is it naïve to think that, by signing on to read fake news reports about rampaging aliens threatening a fictional city, these reporters have subsumed those noble goals in order to promote their own personal brands?

It’s worth noting, of course, that Cooper’s role in Batman v Superman may not have been entirely up to him: Warner Bros., the film’s studio, shares a parent company with CNN, his employer*. In a film that has cross-promotion baked into its creative DNA, it’s possible his cameos were part of a mandatory corporate branding initiative. But, if anything, this possibility is even worse. If journalists so easily bend to the will of their bosses when it comes to appearing in a Zack Snyder movie, how can we expect them to fight when reporting on issues where the interests of the public conflict with the corporation’s bottom line?

I really don’t watch much of any late night comedians, I’ll admit to Colbert’s monologue as he unmerciful on Trump and we know that pisses him off. Samantha Bee makes me laugh as well. Using them, count on them for political insight- nah not really.

Here’s more background about the place from a web site I love called damnedct.com which is full of fun facts about the nooks and crannies in CT, the property already has a chapel:

The Gilead Chapel, which seats approximately 75 worshippers, was built in 1876 and moved to the village from Waterford in the late 1960s.

No one knows the exact age of the one-room Hyde School, which was the original schoolhouse for the community of East Haddam. The Red House Restaurant was built in 1900 and has been renovated into a restaurant/banquet facility for 150-200 people. A clock and toy store, originally used as a meeting house, was built in the 1800s; Frank General Store was built in 1845 in Peru, Mass.

The Gilbert Livery Stable was reportedly built in Winsted in 1920. Its three levels contain oak stalls with unusual woodwork, including beadboard and raised panels. All of this is in a beautiful setting with views of the river, a millpond, island, waterfall and some man-made features such as a covered bridge, wooden dam, paddlewheel riverboat.

Sounds like a great spot for a church who likes to fix buildings up!

The attached pic is the general store, which looks like it would’ve made a great little tavern for the thirsty mill workers on their way home from work.

Btw, the church who bought the property, Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) has been accused of being a cult. It seems to have begun in a similar way to Mormonism.

By 1924, INC had about 3,000 to 5,000 adherents in 43 or 45 congregations in Manila and six nearby provinces.[21] By 1936, INC had 85,000 members. This figure grew to 200,000 by 1954.[22] A Cebu congregation was built in 1937—the first to be established outside of Luzon, and the first in the Visayas. The first mission to Mindanao was commissioned in 1946. Meanwhile, its first concrete chapel was built in Sampaloc, Manila, in 1948.[21][23] Adherents fleeing for the provinces away from Manila, where the Japanese forces were concentrated during World War II, were used for evangelization.

During the martial law era, your church supported Marcos, told people to vote for him, endorsed him. Now you claim your church was a safe haven for people being persecuted during martial law.

Moriadne responded:

The Church voted him when he wasn’t crazy yet. But then he showed his true colors and began harassing everyone, including the Church, like when he allowed his wife Imelda to try and occupy the central office, which as we all know failed. Aware of this development, officials being persecuted by Marcos began using it as one of many safe havens, especially after the Church and Marcos agreed to be officially neutral to each other. When the snap election came, the Church actually didn’t vote, upholding their end of the neutrality agreement. Of course, when Marcos began to attack the Church again right before the EDSA Revolutikkn, all bets were off. The rest is history.

Moriadne says a lot more. Possible good background info. Should be interesting to see what ends up happening there.

p.s. It’s kind of interesting to me how wars can affect the spreading of religions. In this case it seems that the Japanese occupation had a direct effect on the church growing in size and ultimately ‘going international’.

With all of the upheavals in the Middle East, and the resulting immigrants/refugees, mosques are popping up all over the world where there were none before.

The Irish and Italian emigrations to North America, one due to the injustices perpetrated upon the people by England and the other directly affected by WWII, definitely boosted Catholic populations, for ex.